STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20389, 21 April 1928, Page 23

STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY.

Written for the Otago Daily Times,

By J. MacGrkcor, M.L.O,

"It takes all the wisdom of the wise to repair the errors of tho good,”

In a recent issue of John O’London’s Weekly there appeared an article by G. R. Shaw with the title “ Why Not Give Christianity a Trial?” AVhen the present writer is met with tho query, “ What have yon to propose as a substitute for our present - system?” he would be quite justified in following Mr Shaw’s example with tho question, “ Why not give conciliation a trial ”; for if anything Ims been made clear it is that conciliation has not been tried and tested for the purpose set forth in the title to the Reeves Act—“ to facilitate the settlement of industrial disputes by concili: tiou and arbitration.” Nothing could b; more certain than that Mr Reeves regarded conciliation as the very soul of his system, as is shown by the following sentence for his second-reading speech in Parliament“ I think that in 90 circs i 100 in which industrial disputes arise they will be settled by the conciliation boards.” As a description of the actual working of the Act some such sentence as the following would be nearer tho mark: —“ In 09 eases in 100 disputes have been raised for tho express purpose of having them dealt with by the court.” This result was made possible, or perhaps even inevitable, by reason of the fact that the system had been so much interfered with and altered during the Scddon Liberal-Labour regime, at the dictation of the bastard unions created under the Act that it was scarcely recognisable. Within five years after the passing of the Act the Reeves Conciliation boards were, perverted into courts of law With a right of appeal to the Arbitration Court, and five years later they were abolished. What did we get in their place? Secret bodies so suitable for the purpose of giving effect to the noble principle of “ Pass it on” that they might have been specially devised for that very • purpose. Rut they are called Councils of Conciliation, and yet tho name is the only connection they have with real conciliation—vox ct pi'ictcm nihil. Apropos of tins senes of articles the writer has received from a friend who knows more about the subject than he docs a letter containing a passage ot which the following is a copy.— You propounded many years ago the view that the best thing for New Zealand was to abolish the arbitration system altogether, and to leave only tho provision for an investigation before anv strike or lockout look place. Things have got steadily worse since then, and the abohtion of compulsory arbitration seems to he the simple and sufficient remedy. I cannot understand why the employers are so blind as not_ to see that, and whv they do not join with the farmers in their attack on the system.' In the fifth article of this series is to bo found the writer’s explanation of the change of on the part of the Employers’ Federation, and it is to the effect that the employers are now at one with the unions in their support of the system, inasmuch as they have come to regard the court as their sheet anchor, because they have come to the conclusion that the “awards ” (ordinances) of tho court justify their guiding principle of “pass it on,’’ and even give it an air of respectability. So comforting is this feeling that they had completely forgotten their declaration of eternal war against preference to unionists, until they were so unkindly reminded of it by tho writer in the fifth article. As for the farmers, tho writer has found himself forced to the conclusion that it is not worth while bothering about them until they come to some rational understanding among themselves. Of all the suggestioas that have come under the writer’s notice the proposal put forward by Mr Poison on their behalf for the establishment of a new court of throe judges is the most foolish, futile, and absurd that has ever come under Ida notice. It would thus appear that wo have arrived in our investigation at a point from which we can see all round our sub met. AYc find, then, that the Government, in consequence of its having arrived in Parliament, at an impasse in an effort to make certain amendments in the system, found it necessary to undertake to convoke a conference of representatives of the various interests concerned to consider the subject in all its bearings. It so happens that tho Government of tho Australian Commonwealth found itself in a similar position, at almost the same moment in an effort to deal with similar difficulties in connection with the same subject, and convened a conference, for practically the same purpose—the curing of certain evils arising from a system, which it had, unfortunately, copied from New Zealand! In these circumstances there is a strong presumption that the evils and the difficulties to be dealt witli arise from the same causes in Australia and in New Zealand, and that for the simple reason that such evils are inherent in the very idea of dealing with industrial troubles by means of a court of law. It would seem to follow, inevitably, that the only remedy is the abolition of the courts in both countries. Rut the irony of the situation is that in both cases this remedy seems to Ija rendered practically impossible by evils that are inevitable In such a system—a conflict of interests that is likewise inevitable. “ Lot no man who begins an innovation in a State expect that he ahal l stop it at his pleasure, or regulate it according to his intention.”